N.N. Mithal, J. - (1.) THIS First Appeal From Order has been filed by two of the Defendants in a suit filed by the Respondent No. 1 for the recovery of a certain sum from all the three Defendants. On an objection being taken by the Defendants regarding jurisdiction of the Court, it was held that the suit was barred under Section 111 read with Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. On appeal by the Plaintiff, the said decision has been set aside. According to the order of the lower appellate Court the Plaintiff has been directed to first delete the name of Respondent No. 3 from the array of Defendants where after the suit will become cognizable by the Civil Court against the remaining Defendants. Aggrieved by this order, Defendants 1 and 2 have come up in appeal. The Plaintiff Respondent has also filed a cross -objection assailing the directions given by the lower appellate Court and its other findings.
(2.) AT the very outset, it may be stated that the order passed by the lower appellate Court is totally unjustified and I need not impress that it is no part of Court's duty to advise as to the parties against whom Plaintiff ought to proceed in the suit. It is also not its function to direct the deletion of any of the parties from the suit as directed by the order under appeal. It is entirely for the Plaintiff to decide against whom he wishes to proceed in a suit, and, if necessary it is for the Plaintiff himself to seek an amendment by deleting any name from the array of parties. Sri. S.K. Verma, appearing for the Respondent, has also very candidly conceded that the Court had no power to give any such direction. In the present case, the Plaintiff came to the Court with an allegation that he was a member of Defendant society, which was referred to as bank, in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The Plaintiff had an account with it since 1966 in which Rs. 10,000/ - stood to his credit. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are respectively the Amin and Supervisor of the Cooperative Society, had approached him and on their assurance that they will get back Plaintiff's money lying in deposit with Defendant No. 3 obtained his signatures on blank papers. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 9,800/ - had been illegally withdrawn by them from Plaintiff's account on different dates in collusion with Defendant No. 3 and its employees who were negligent and had committed misconduct. He, therefore, claimed that the society was also liable for the amount. While dealing with cause of action for the suit, it was alleged in para 12 of the plaint that Defendant No. 3 carried on business at village Nizamabad within the jurisdiction of the Court.
(3.) THUS , the only question for consideration in this case is whether on these allegations can it be said that the dispute was covered by provisions of Section 70? According to Sri. N. Lal, these allegations would clearly show that the dispute related to the business of the Society, which was a Bank and was carrying on its business by keeping Plaintiff's money in an account from which certain money had been fraudulently taken out by Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 due to the negligence and misconduct of employees of Defendant No. 3. According to him, the dispute was between the Plaintiff, who was admittedly a member of the society, on the one hand and society or its employees on the other hand which related to the business of the society. Thus the matter was clearly covered by the provision of Section 70(1).;